Sometimes, the harm that results from an accident can be straightforward and immediately apparent. For example, a situation where a person trips, falls and breaks an ankle is just such a scenario. In other circumstances, though, the harm that is triggered by an accident may include damages that are not immediate. When yours is the latter type of scenario, you may still be entitled to recover compensation for all of the harm you suffered, as long as the accident was the “proximate cause” of all of that harm. For advice about proximate cause, foreseeability and representation in your accident case, look to an experienced California injury lawyer..
Here’s a real-life example from an actual case (Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2016-00838494): The accident took place during the running of a 5K run/walk held on the sidewalks of a city 37 miles outside Los Angeles. The race was put on by a seller of running/walking shoes and other gear.
The race course ran through a construction zone at one point. Racers had to cross a construction driveway to get from one area of sidewalk to the next. 60-year-old T. caught her foot on a 1.5-2.0 cm ledge located within that driveway.
T. sued both the city and the business that put on the 5K. In a situation like T.’s, there can be several ways to achieve a successful result. As a premises liability case, T.’s case asserted that the city and the business owed runners and walkers a duty to make sure that the sidewalks it permitted to be used for the race were safe for that purpose. If any areas were potentially dangerous, then they had an obligation either to correct the problem or warn racers about the potential danger.
In this circumstance, the injured woman’s case focused upon that construction driveway. The injured woman asserted that it was an act of negligence to route the race through an area that required runners and walkers to go through any construction zones at all. Alternately, the woman argued that the business was negligent by failing to post cones or course monitors in the construction area.
T.’s fall caused her to suffer a fractured kneecap. That led to a course of medical treatment that included having her leg elevated for a month. That extended period of immobilization led to Theresa developing a blood clot in her calf. This turn of events is an important one to acknowledge and understand when it comes to injury cases. The law says that if you are injured due to someone else’s negligence, that person or entity is responsible for all the harm that you suffered as a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the accident. So, while most people who suffer broken kneecaps in trip-and-fall accidents probably don’t subsequently develop blood clots in their legs, a blood clot that arises from an extended period of leg elevation (based upon the fracture sustained during the initial injury incident) is not so unconnected as to be unforeseeable.
In this case, the totality of T.’s injuries led to a jury verdict of $827,000.
For all your legal needs related to your personal injury case, contact the diligent San Mateo personal injury attorneys at the Law Offices of Galine, Frye, Fitting & Frangos. Our attorneys have been helping injured people pursue the compensation they need for many years. To set up a free consultation with one of our experienced attorneys, contact us at 650-345-8484 or through our website.
More Blog Posts:
Family of a Northern California Jogger Killed by a Bus Obtains $4M Judgment, San Mateo Injury Lawyers Blog, published June 20, 2018
How the Option of a Default Judgment Can Help You Succeed in Your California Premises Liability Case, San Mateo Injury Lawyers Blog, published April 26, 2018